logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.11.18 2016노1501
교통사고처리특례법위반
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant filed each appeal on the grounds that the sentence (four months of imprisonment without prison labor and one year of suspended execution) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable; and (b) the prosecutor is too uncompared and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s fault is recognized and against his own mistake, and the victim’s fault seems to have caused the instant traffic accident without examining the left and right, and it seems that the Defendant’s fault in governance of the road was the cause of the instant traffic accident. Although the Defendant operated the vehicle at the specified speed, the Defendant did not discover the victim in advance due to the vehicle parked in the vicinity of the said crosswalk, but did not find the accident of this case and appeared to have caused the accident of this case, there are some circumstances to consider the circumstance, and the Defendant wanting the Defendant’s wife up to the trial by the victim’s family members who agreed smoothly with the Defendant, and there is no criminal penalty power, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant while driving a vehicle in front of an elementary school designated as a children protection zone, and the victim under the age of 8 who dried the crosswalk installed therein with the vehicle and sustained an injury requiring about 7 weeks medical treatment. The defendant neglected to pay more severe attention than ordinary cases in order to prevent the accident, such as predicting the possibility of the children to have his own marbity in the above crosswalks on which the passage of children is frequent, temporary suspension in front of the crosswalks, or sounding the light, and thus, the degree of violation of the duty of care is significant, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is serious, and the victim's age, etc. seems to be reasonable in view of the victim's age, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

The above circumstances are as follows.

arrow